Given the offender’s significant prior record, the facts (loaded restricted firearm with obliterated serial number and ammunition in a rental vehicle while under a prohibition not to drive), and sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence and separation, the court imposed 2.5 years custody for s.95, a consecutive 1 year custody for s.117.01(3)(a), and 45 days concurrent for s.145; remand of 706 days was credited at 1.5:1 to 1059 days producing a remaining custodial balance of 219 days; ancillary orders of 24 months probation with reporting and counselling, lifetime firearm prohibition u…
The court continued a protection order, found evidence of coercive and abusive conduct, and granted limited supervised parenting time with communication exceptions.
Interim family law decision on relocation, parenting time, and breach of order. The court allowed the children to remain in Winnipeg pending trial, imposed a $5,000 penalty, and kept supervised contact.
The court found the respondent breached a notice order by taking the child to India without required notice. It varied earlier terms, imposed a $500 fine, and addressed counselling and costs.
Where a creditor's claim arises solely from its breach of a clear Mareva injunction the court has broad equitable jurisdiction to refuse, delay or condition enforcement of that claim; applying that principle, the Court of Appeal found BCU breached the Mareva order and ordered enforcement of amounts advanced in breach delayed until Trade Capital's action is determined, with pari passu recovery if Trade Capital succeeds.
The court found Gregory Martel in civil contempt for failing to comply with receivership and disclosure orders, and ordered a warrant and CPIC posting if possible.
The court refused special costs, awarded Appendix B costs to the mother, dismissed the father’s application, and imposed a $5,000 FLA fine for repeated breaches.
The court allowed the respondent to relocate with the child to Victoria, kept the parents as joint guardians, ordered long-distance parenting time, and made child and spousal support awards.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Fox’s application for leave to cross-examine trial Crown counsel, finding no reasonable possibility the evidence would assist the appeal.
Leave to cross-examine under s.683(1)(b) criminal code